MTG Salvation

So, was Shards of Alara block just too much of a good thing? That's a tricky question (and I'll explain why) but I'm going to say "no", the well has not necessarily run dry for gold cards. The problem was specifically in how WotC chose to innovate the design of gold cards in Shards of Alara block. The problem, again, lay in the earlier successes of Invasion and Ravnica blocks. Contrary to popular myth, Invasion was not the first set with a significant multicolor theme. It was, however, the first set to tie its success to that of a unique multicolor operation, specifically that of players playing as many colors as possible. Ravnica block one-upped Invasion's concept by introducing the guild model, pushing players to play one of the ten two-color pairs. Both of these operational concepts were a resounding success, and paved the way for a third attempt at gold card innovation in Shards of Alara.

Here's the problem: Invasion and Ravnica had claimed all of the easy, new operations that arise while designing a gold set or block. Two-, three-, four- and five-color concepts had already been explored. This is where I explain the "tricky" part of the question that I raised earlier. After Ravnica, the idea of combining one or more colors with another - in any quantity, combination, or to any degree - was played out. But, there was still room for design in the mechanics of the mana itself (as was explored in Shadowmoor and Eventide) or in the method of delivery. What do I mean by "method of delivery"? Ravnica explored a new delivery method that was quintessentially linked to its multicolor concept: spreading out the release of the ten color pairs over the course of the block. It presented something old using a new method that defied players' expectations.

This is where Shards of Alara failed. On the surface, the idea to have five separate shards, each with only three colors of mana, seems like an idea rife with possibilities. But this thematic concept got lost in the journey to becoming an operational concept. The early promise of cards like Wild Nacatl was lost because we never really got to experience what a plane with only red, green and white mana would be like: we probably opened an Agony Warp in the same pack. Even assuming we could power up our imaginations and get past this theme-defeating fact, other cards in the set worked to sabotage the theme even further: Shards of Alara was full of cycles such as those of Sphinx's Herald, Cruel Ultimatum and Naya Panorama. With these cycles in place, it didn't feel like five different worlds. Conflux and Alara Reborn only weakened the theme further, eventually becoming openly derivative of other, better sets. The new delivery method was abandoned, and with it much of the excitement that Alara block might have given us. How could WotC have done this better?



1. Keep Them Separate

The decision to adopt the "shard model", as I will call it, most likely carried a number of unforeseen problems. First among those is the fact that the five shards still had to live within the same commercial product (a pack of Magic cards). WotC had already spread Ravnica's release amongst three different sets, so they were right not to follow down that same path. But, they should have attempted something just as bold. One possibility might have been to collate the cards so that each individual pack contained cards from only one shard - any given box would have packs from all five, but within each pack the shards theme would have been reinforced and consistent. Another option might have been to adopt a more prominent graphical distinction - like Odyssey's flashback icon - to better separate the shards within a pack. For this kind of theme, a player should be able to distinguish that Dragon Fodder belongs to the black-red-green shard and Skeletonize belongs to the blue-black-red one (if indeed that is the case).

2. Bring Your "A"-Game

Lest people think that I criticize Shards of Alara simply for messing up its multicolor theme, let me reassure you: Alara block also sucks because it is the dumping ground for tons of terrible mechanics. Exalted, devour and unearth are all third-string keywords. Colored artifacts and "power 5 or greater" are similarly small-time mechanics. I suspect that WotC succumbed to a bit of hubris here: Ravnica block was also littered with B-list and C-list mechanics, but WotC got a pass on those because everything else about Ravnica block was so excellent. Not so with Shards of Alara, and this time WotC's chintzy mechanic design showed through. The time for multicolor blocks to absorb the also-rans should be over. If Shards of Alara had showcased mechanics as good as those in Time Spiral or Lorwyn blocks, so much more could have been forgiven.

3. Build Around the Block

WotC often likes to remind us that they break their own rules. The much-vaunted three act structure of blocks like Invasion, Ravnica and Time Spiral is one of those rules most broken. When it's ignored for a good reason, such as in the double-double act of Lorwyn-Shadowmoor block, the results can be awesome. When it's ignored out of convenience or a lack of good ideas, the results are usually bad. Shards of Alara falls into the latter category. There is no meaningful intra-block progression from Shards of Alara to Conflux to Alara Reborn, except for the continued dilution of the block's very innovative organizing principle (separate three-color shards). Shards of Alara block needed a vision that would carry it through three sets. The possibilities for this are numerous, and any one of them would have built more excitement for the subsequent sets than the muddle that was Alara's block design. A second aspect of this directive is the idea of staying committed to the block's theme - how are we supposed to take the notion of three-color shards seriously, for example, if no effort is made to show how those three colors can be enemies as well as allies?

Shards of Alara block was perhaps a victim of circumstance. Hopefully, if WotC takes some insight from Alara's failures, the next gold block will avoid the same pitfalls.

Agree? Disagree? Have a different perspective to share? Post your comments below.